rian concludes, was the condition of the monarchy of Scotland; free and independent as kings; but, as poffeffing English territories, vaffals to the king of England. An unexpected calamity, he obferves, that befel one of the Scotch king, first encouraged the English to think of bringing his kingdom under dependence. William, king of Scotland, being taken prisoner at Alnwick, Henry II. as the price of his liberty, not only extorted from him an exorbitant ranfom, and a promife to furrender the places of the greateft ftrength in his dominions, but compelled him to do homage for his whole kingdom. Richard I. a generous prince, folemnly renounced. this claim of homage, and abfolved William from the hard conditions which Henry had impofed. Upon the death of Alexander III. near a century after, Edward I. availing himself of the fituation of affairs in Scotland, acquired an influence in that kingdom, which no English monarch before him ever poffeffed; and imitating the interefted policy of Henry, rather than the magnanimity of Richard, revived the claim of Sovereignty to which the former had pretended. Edward was chofen umpire to decide the contefted title between Robert Bruce and John Baliol, the two competitors for the crown of Scotland. Under pretence of examining the queftion with the utmoft folemnity, he fummoned all the Scotch barons to meet at Norham, and having gained fome, and intimidated others, he prevailed on all who were prefent, not excepting Bruce and Balil the competitors, to acknowledge ScotJand a fief of the English crown, and to fwear fealty to him as their fovereign or liege lord. To add strength to these measures, alleging that it was in vain to pronounce a sentence which he had not power to execute, Edward demanded poffeffion of the kingdom, that he might be able to deliver it to him whose right fhould be found preferable: and to this ftrange demand, both the competitors and the nobles affented. At length, Edward finding Bal:ol the moft obfequious, and the leaft formidable of the two competitors, gave judgment in his favour, and he thereupon again profefled himfelf the vassal of England. Edward, however, beginning too foon to affume the mafter, provoked even the paffive fpirit of Baliol; but Edward, who had no longer ufe for fuch a pageant king, forced him to refign the crown, and openly attempted to feize it as fallen to himself, by the rebellion of his vaffal. At that critical period arofe Sir William Wallace, a hero who ventured almost fingly to take arms in defence of the kingdom. But at laft Robert Bruce, the grandfon of him who ftood in competition with Robert Baliol, appeared to affert his own rights, and to vindi Cate cate the honour of his country: and though the war with Ergland continued with little intermiffion upwards of feventy years, Bruce and his pofterity kept poffeffion of the throne of Scotland, and ruled with an authority not inferior to that of its former monarchs. Here the learned Hiftorian begins to unfold the antient conftitution of Scotland, which, he says, according to the genius of the feudal government, was purely ariftocratical Before they fallied out of their own habitations to conquer the world, many of the northern nations, he obferves, feem not to have been fubject to the government of kings; and even where monarchical government was eftablished, the prince poffeffed but little authority. A general rather than a king, his military command was extenfive, his civil jurifdiction almoft nothing. The army which he led was not compofed of foldiers, who could be compelled to ferve, but of fuch as voluntarily followed his ftandard. Thefe conquered not for their leader, but for themfelves; and being free in their own country, renounced not their liberty when they acquired new fettlements. They did not exterminate the ancient inhabitants of the countries which they fubdued, but feizing the greater part of their lands, they took their perfons under protection. And the difficulty of maintaining a new conqueft, as well as the danger of being attacked by new invaders, rendering it neceflary to be always in a pofture of defence, the form of government which they eftablifhed, was altogether military, and nearly refembled that to which they had been accustomed in their native country. Their general ftill continuing to be the head of the colony, part of the conquered lands were allotted to him; the remainder, under the name of beneficia or fiefs, was divided amongst his principal officers. As the common fafety required that thefe officers fhould, upon all occafions, be ready to appear in arms, for the common defence, and should continue obedient to their general, they bound themfelves to take the field, when called, and to ferve him with a number of men, in proportion to the extent of their territory. Thefe great officers, again, parcelled out their lands among their followers, and annexed the fame condition to the grant. A feudal kingdom was properly the encampment of a great army; military ideas predominated, military fubordination was established, and the poffeffion of land was the pay which foldiers received for their perfonal fervice. In confequence of thefe notions, the poffeffion of land was granted during pleasure only, and kings were elective. In other words, an officer difagreeable to his general was deprived of his pay, and the person who was most capable of conducting an army, was chofen to command it. Such were the first rudiments, or infancy of feudal government.' M 4 It cers.' It must be confeffed, that the principles of the feudal government are here opened and explained in a very fuccinct and ingenious manner. Nevertheless, the Writer is not free from inaccuracy, when he tells us, that part of the conquered lands were allotted to the general, and that the remainder, under the name of beneficia or fiefs, was divided among his principal offiWe must obferve, that in the first rudiments or infancy of feudal government,' these were terms altogether unknown. We may affert, upon the authority of Sir Henry Spelman, that while the allotments of lands were precarious or at will, they were called munera, or gifts. Afterwards, when they became temporary and for life, they were called beneficia or * benefices; and they were first called feuda, or fiefs, when they began to be granted in perpetuity, and not before. As an improper ufe of technical terms occafions much confufion and obfcurity, efpecially in points of antiquity, we thought it material to rectify this mistake; and we now with pleafure return to our Author, who very juftly obferves, that long before the beginning of the fourteenth century, the feudal fyftem had undergone many changes, of which the most confiderable were, that kings, formerly elective, were then hereditary; and fiefs granted at firft during pleafure, defcended from father to fon, and were become perpetual. Thefe changes, not lefs advantageous to the nobles than to the prince, made no alteration in the ariftocratical fpirit of the feudal conftitution. The king, who at a diftance feems to be invested with majesty and power, appears, on a nearer view, to poffefs none of these advantages, which beftow on monarchs their grandeur and authority. Our hiftorian then proceeds to explain the general caufes, which limitted the power of the feudal monarchs. Their revenues, he obferves, were fcanty. Commerce made little progrefs in the kingdoms where the feudal government was established. Institutions, which had no other object but to infpire a martial fpirit, to train men to be foldiers, and to make arms the only honourable profeffion, naturally difcouraged the commercial arts: and confequently, the revenues arifing from thence were inconfiderable. As to other ftated or cafual taxes, they formed a revenue too fcanty and precarious, to enable the king to attempt any thing that could excite the fear or jealoufy of the nobles. In the next place, the king had no ftanding armies. Mercenary troops were unknown, as long as the feudal government fubfifted in vigour. Conquerors, whom mercenary armies, under our prefent forms of government, often render the tyrants of From hence our Clergymen's livings, at this day, retain the name of Benefices. their their own people, as well as the fcourges of mankind, were commonly, under the feudal conftitution, the most indulgent of all princes to their fubjects, because they food most in need. of their affiftance. A prince, whom even war and victories did not render the mafter of his own army, poffeffed no fhadow of military power during times of peace. His difbanded foldiers mingled with his other fubjects; not a fingle man received pay from him; many ages elapfed even before a guard was appointed to defend his perfon; and deftitute of that great inftrument of dominion, a standing army, the authority of the king continued always feeble, and was often contemptible. Laftly, the royal jurifdiction was limitted. By the feudal fyftem the king's judicial authority was extremely circumscribed. At first, princes feem to have been the fupreme judges of their people; and, in perfon, heard and determined all controverfies among them. The multiplicity of caufes foon made it neceffary to appoint judges, who, in the king's name, decided matters. belonging to the royal jurifdiction; but the Barbarians, who over-ran Europe, having deftroyed most of the great cities, and the countries which they feized being cantoned out among powerful barons, who were blindly followed by numerous vafials, whom, in return, they were bound to protect from every injury, the administration of juftice was greatly interrupted. Every offender sheltered himself under the protection of fome powerful chieftain, who screened him from the pursuits of justice. Our hiftorian obferves, that in the fame proportion that the king funk in power, the nobles rofe towards independence and acquired greater power in Scotland than in any other kingdom. Their retainers, he says, were so numerous, that the usual retinue of William, the fixth earl of Douglas, confifted of two thousand horse. He then proceeds to enumerate the particular causes which contributed to enlarge and confirm their power. He justly confiders the nature of their country as one cause of the power and independence of the Scotch nobles. Level and open countries, fays he, are formed for fervitude: the authority of the fupreme magiftrate reaches with eafe to the most diftant corners, and when nature has erected no barriers, and afforded no retreat, the guilty and obnoxious are foon detected and punished. Mountains, and fens, and rivers, fet bounds to defpotic power, and amidst these is the natural feat of freedom and independence. The want of great cities in Scotland, is mentioned as another caufe, which contributed to increase the power of the nobles. Wherever, fays our Hiftorian, numbers of men affemble together, order must be established, and a regular form of govern ment ment inflituted, the authority of the magiftrate must be recog nized, and his decifions meet with prompt and full obedience. Laws and fubordination take rife in cities, and where there are few cities, as in Poland, or none, as in Tartary, there are few or no traces of any fort of police. The divifion of the country into clans is reckoned the next caufe which rendered the nobles confiderable. The nations, fays our hiftorian, which over-ran Europe, were originally divided into many small tribes; and when they came to parcel out the lands which they had conquered, it was natural for every chieftain to bestow a portion, in the firft place, upon thofe of his own tribe or family. Thefe all held their lands of him; and as the fafety of each individual depended on the general union, thefe fmall focieties clung together, and were diftinguifhed by fome common appellation, either patronymical, or local, long before the introduction of firnames or enfigns armorial; but when thefe became common, the defcendants and relations of every chieftain affumed the fame name and arms with him; other vaflals were proud to imitate their example, and by degrees they were communicated to all those who held of the fame fuperior. Thus clanfhips were formed; and in a generation or two, that confanguinity which was at first, in a great meafure, imaginary, was believed to be real. Among the remaining caufes, which contributed to advance the power and independance of the Scotch nobility, our hiftorian counts the fmall number of nobles: their leagues and combinations; the frequent wars between England and Scotland; and the frequent minorities which happened in the latter. He then proceeds to take a review of the events favourable to the nobles during each minority, from David II. the fon of Robert Bruce, to James V. In the next place, he fhews by what general means the kings endeavoured to reftrain the intolerable power of the nobles; and then specifies the particular methods which each king purfued for that purpofe. He then goes on to explain the reafons why, amidst all thefe ftruggles, the Scotch kings retained an extraordinary influence in parliament. This he attributes to the genius of the feudal government, and the nature of the Scotch parliament, wherein many of the barons declining attendance, the ecclefiaftics equalled those who remained in number, and being devoted implicitly to the crown, rendered all hope of victory in any ftruggle defperate. Befide, that the nobles, confcious of their own itrength, and the king's inability to carry acts into execution without their concurrence, they trufted either to elude or to contemn them. Our historian very accurately analyies the conftitution of the Scotch parlia ment, |